Ironically, a major pusher of this form factor is Apple's own primary "Retina" display provider LG Electronics Inc. (KSC:066570), which has handed Android phonemakers an even more powerful display -- a monstrous 5-inch Retina unit.

While many people mistakenly think Apple "invented" the Retina display, it really just bought it -- bought it from LG.

Now Android smartphone makers -- including LG itself -- are preparing to launch 5-inch smartphones powered by LG's new 1080p HD 5-inch Retina display, which packs an impressive 440 ppi. While not quite as high a pixel density as rival Toshiba Corp.'s (TYO:6502) recently demoed 498 ppi 6-inch display, LG's display is a bit further ahead given that it's reportedly ready for immediate product integration.

Devices with the monstrous new display could be available by the holiday season.

LG's new display is among the highest resolution 5-inch displays in the industry.
[Image Source: LG]

On the technical side, the new unit features a somewhat new technology called Advanced High Performance In-Plane Switching (AH-IPS), an evolution of IPS which offers faster response times (your image updates faster), better brightness efficiency (the display uses less power), and better viewing angles (you can tilt your device and still read it).

RGB displays like this new model enjoy a slight advantage over Samsung Electronics Comp., Ltd.'s (KSC:005930) Pentile display format, in that they show less undesirable pixel visibility (aka "pixellation") at the same ppi (pixels per inch) measurement.

The Optimus Vu features a much different 4:3 aspect ratio, though, which makes it appear very squat. It reportedly was released in South Korea earlier in May, and will slowly roll out worldwide in coming months.

I don't think anyone thinks that. The point most are trying to make is that Apple doesn't "invent" any tech. They purchase tech and design products from the tech they purchase. They are a product design company. Then they market it with an extremely powerful marketing engine.

They are good at what they do. They sell existing technologies that they package in a usable manner.

Because they are salesman, they conjure up sales pitch. Is there something wrong with that?Any good salesman will never try to "convince you" to buy anything. They conjure up ideas and stir up your imagination to make you convince yourself that the product is what they made it out to be.

You don't like it, then go live in a hole like a hermit. No marketing campaigns there. Just you and nature.

Apple is not trying to sell you what it cannot deliver. The features works and people are happy with it. No smoke and mirrors there. Just good advertising to present themselves in the best light possible. Something every company should try to emulate ... unless you don't like profits.

I'd say they're a bit more than a salesman. They are very good at implementing simple and easy to use user interfaces. In fact I'd say the UI is solely what carried the iPod to success (which eventually led to the iPhone and iPad).

Feature-wise, the iPod was inferior to many of the other MP3 players out there. But the iPod's UI blew the others away. The other MP3 players' UIs reminded me of Linux - designed by geeks who love complexity with access to every feature you could think of - if you knew where to find it. The iPod's UI pared it down to just the essentials, and made it so simple that regular people were comfortable with learning to use it in a few minutes.

That's what makes them successful IMHO. We computer enthusiasts aren't normal, we're the minority. Apple doesn't design products with us in mind, they design products for the mostly-computer illiterate majority.

Problem is Apple has bought into their own sales pitches. They truly see themselves as the worlds inventor and innovator, and anyone else making competing products is "stealing", so they need to be sued off the map.

1) Apple did not create anything unique in the iPhone. At best, it was a new OS with design factors from a variety of already existing products on the market. iOS is the most unique part of the iPhone as cell phones, touch screens, mobile apps, and multitouch existed long before Apple got into the market.

2)Google contracted HTC, a company with a very long history of creating mobile devices with touch screens (mostly Windows devices, but they also created devices with their own OS, ie, the sidekick) to build the T-Mobile G1 with T-Mo as a partner.

So yes, perhaps Google changed direction on the necessity of a touch screen in the OS to compete with Apple. But the T-Mobile G1 is an HTC/T-Mobile product, and had features that Apple actively refuses to integrate into iOS, but are hallmarks of HTC's history with phones (physical keyboard, direction pads, expandable SD storage, etc).

But the dialogue is skewed on the subject of the OS. HTC has created touch screen devices capable of much more than Apple is willing to design into iPhone.

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with Google redesigning their OS to allow HTC hardware to better compete in a market it already exists in.

quote: I don't think anyone thinks that. The point most are trying to make is that Apple doesn't "invent" any tech

Lets be honest, none of the current crop of Android or Windows phone manufacturers invented anything. They didn't even invent the idea of making an easy to use smartphone with a proper web browser which had an app store for expandability. Apple did. They just copied it. They are manufacturers. Innovation when it comes to phones is in the design and engineering, for example Apple was innovative enough to be the first to properly embed a useful voice assistant into the phone operating system, or perhaps innovative enough in their engineering to create the dual antenna-edge system, which while flawed in their first iteration (iPhone 4) was corrected in the second and remains unique in the industry (iPhone 4S). They also innovated many of the gestures and galleries associated with most modern smartphones, and their products continue to lead the way technologically. The iPhone 4S has only recently been marginally surpassed in terms of performance, 7 months after it was released, by only the Samsung Galaxy S3. That means every other Android manufacturer has failed to reach that level. The iPad 2 is still miles ahead of every Android tablet, let alone the new iPad which has simply not been matched and nothing looks likely to match it for a long time yet.

To think there is no invention or innovation when putting together technology in this way is such an illogical and unintelligent way to view the value they add. If it was as easy as creating a derivative screen and calling it 'Super AMOLED' - Samsung would have done it 7 months earlier. Even if they did match it, Apple leads the quality and customer satisfaction polls across the whole category.

How about all the main android Manufacturers?

Samsung? Wow they created their own derivative screen, because screens didn't exist before? Then they put pentile displays (inferior) on their flagship products. And of course, they copy the Siri idea which came out half a year earlier. Innovative?

Motorola - in fairness they are credited with inventing the mobile phone, although even that existed in various guises before they even tried. Now if I was exceptionally bitter about the company I would write endless rants about 'prior art' and how papers had been written documenting how this would work and demonstrated in labs before Motorola even heard of it, but I'm not that insecure. Take note, Apple bashers.

HTC - Nothing to see here.

Really Apple is by far the most innovative technology company, they revolutionised the music world with the iPod, the phone world has been changed unrecognisably since the iPhone, and they are in the process of totally disrupting the tablet market too. You don't do that without innovating and bringing new ideas and techniques to the table.

I was using Google voice WAY before Siri even came out. You're information is typically wrong and biased.

Pentile screens? They HAD to use pentile screens because there was no such thing as a non-pentile 720p screen. The Galaxy SIII will be the first EVER non-pentile 720p screen. Once again, don't know what you are talking about. And where do you get that all Samsung flagship products have pentile screens? My Galaxy S2 doesn't, pretty sure that was a flagship phone.

SAMOLED+ is "derivative" technology? Honestly tester, you're too stupid and biased to even take seriously. You Apple fanbois here are a joke, why can't you see it?

1) Apple did not create anything unique in the iPhone. At best, it was a new OS with design factors from a variety of already existing products on the market. iOS is the most unique part of the iPhone as cell phones, touch screens, mobile apps, and multitouch existed long before Apple got into the market.

2)Google contracted HTC, a company with a very long history of creating mobile devices with touch screens (mostly Windows devices, but they also created devices with their own OS, ie, the sidekick) to build the T-Mobile G1 with T-Mo as a partner.

So yes, perhaps Google changed direction on the necessity of a touch screen in the OS to compete with Apple. But the T-Mobile G1 is an HTC/T-Mobile product, and had features that Apple actively refuses to integrate into iOS, but are hallmarks of HTC's history with phones (physical keyboard, direction pads, expandable SD storage, etc).

But the dialogue is skewed on the subject of the OS. HTC has created touch screen devices capable of much more than Apple is willing to design into iPhone.

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with Google redesigning their OS to allow HTC hardware to better compete in a market it already exists in.

His emphasis was on "useful," and probably a specific definition of it. Google Voice Actions have their uses, but they don't make for a very natural system at all. If you don't say "weather Ottawa," it has no clue what you were asking. On Siri, I can ask "what's it like in Ottawa?" "will I need an umbrella today?" or even "is it good outside?" There's a big difference between something that's just waiting for a specific command and one that's actually determining context as well as letting you ask the way you would a real person.

Remember: don't mistake having *any* form of a feature for being first with an implementation. Video chat existed before Skype; that didn't mean Skype wasn't the actual revolution.

The GS3 still uses a Pentile screen, it's just not as conspicuous as it was on the Galaxy Nexus. Super AMOLED definitely isn't derivative; you do have to give credit to Samsung as a display maker, since it can always set its own agenda. Apple was the first smartphone maker that I know of to push for a "pixel-free" display on a phone, but it doesn't have an HD resolution... at least, not yet.

That line of thought seems pretty subjective. He's flat out said Google copied Apple's Siri. He didn't make any mention of "most useful". He even created a false timeline where Apple came out with voice commands first!

That's just more fodder for fanboi's anyway because most people don't talk to their phones and never will. Voice recognition is mostly a gimmick.

His whole post enforces the stereotype that stupid Apple fanbois believe Apple is the supreme driving force of innovation and invention in the world, and that everything we have is due to them.

"His whole post enforces the stereotype that stupid Apple fanbois believe Apple is the supreme driving force of innovation and invention in the world, and that everything we have is due to them."

Exactly... The funny thing is when you catch them in a complete falsity like that, and expose it as you just did above they always disappear and don't post back. Then they come back with it again weeks later as if it was never said. This sort of proves that they are not only full of crap, they are aware of it... thus they are purposelyy spreading dis-information to Apple benefit.

This indicates they (Testerguy, Macdevdude, Tony Squash etc) are either one of 2 things. They are either purposly trying to make Apple look good for professional benefit, or they are just complete no-life losers. The distinction means little, becasue neither is acceptable.

"he really is posting on the wrong website. He is not going to win any minds here..."

Well, if you aren't bright enough to see through Apple's RDF, and you aren't bright enough to figure out where to post Apple skewed info and you don't have the social awareness to realize everyone around you thinks your an idiot, then you probably aren't going to realize that your dis-infomation isn't sinking in to the target audience.

I believe that you are 1000% correct. I have been watching their (Tony's) total BS for a long time now and just decided to finally create an account and will down rate every comment from any of his personae. No one in their right state of mind wants to read his pro Apple propaganda as we all know he is just one of Apple's pathetic paid cult followers.

I really enjoy how he always manages to throw in ALOT of legal jargon and hopes that everyone just believes him and will not question his "facts."

quote: His whole post enforces the stereotype that stupid Apple fanbois believe Apple is the supreme driving force of innovation and invention in the world, and that everything we have is due to them.

"Everything we have"?? Surely no one really believes that... Just in your bubble world, where you somehow have the clairvoyance to read the mind of every person to ever comment positively on an Apple product.

Quite the opposite, they came out with the first mass market designs of wireless devices featuring touch. I was using my T-Mobile MDA as a touch screen (without a stylus) long before the iPhone appeared.

Are you seriously suggesting that Apple came out with the idea of touch screens all by themselves, and just waited until after HTC released half a decade worth of phones to release the iPhone?